On Tuesday, June 13, Holladay residents came out in full
force to voice their concerns over the proposed tree-protection ordinance,
which took a surprising turn given the number of residents who requested the city
take action to protect Holladay trees during a Marchcity council meeting.

An hour after the open house kicked off, there was a heated
exchange between Walker Lane residents. The two parties walked away with one
side feeling attacked and the other far from going the route of love thy
neighbor.

“(Some of) these are old dead trees — what (you’re) doing is
spending a lot of money to recreate the canopy,” said a female bystander after
the exchange took place.

The June 13 open house was the result of city officials addressing
resident concerns and requests to have Holladay establish a tree-protection
ordinance. Drafting the ordinance was no small feat, and included the Holladay
City Tree Committee, an ad hoc committee of city staff, and assistance from
former City Planner Pat Hanson and Cottonwood resident Kim Kimball.

“The tree committee has long been concerned about the
continuing reduction in the size of the tree canopy in Holladay’s urban
forest,” said Steve Gunn, District 4 council member.

Gunn went on to explain Holladay already had two tree
ordinances on the books, one designed to prevent the removal of trees without
permission from the city’s right-of-way, and another that prohibits removing or
damaging trees near ditches, canals or streams.

“In essence, the new ordinance will amend those by limiting
the ability of lot owners to remove larger trees in certain areas of the city,
without providing a replacement,” Gunn said.

The ordinance at first glance was seemingly welcomed by the
community with open arms, especially by residents in the Cottonwood and Walker
Lane neighborhoods.

However, as the Little Cottonwood room in City Hall began to
fill during the evening of the open house, group chatter revealed a change of
heart was in the air. Either citizens had gone rogue, or there were just more
residents than initially realized that were not in favor of being told what
they were allowed to do on their property.

Though the ordinance stated it would not prohibit “the
removal of trees that are a hazard risk,” several open house attendees
expressed concern regarding the problems that would arise from the fees
associated with complying in the event they did need to remove a diseased or
dying tree.

One Walker Lane resident with a second home in the foothill
overlay of Arizona did not want to see Holladay faced with what is happening in
Arizona now.

“We have an overlay where our house is in Arizona that has
become a disaster — people don’t take care of their trees because of the cost
of the permit and specialist coming in … it becomes too expensive to take (dead
trees) out,” the Walker Lane resident said.

She went on to say, “I think a better solution to all this
would be start educating everyone about the importance of the trees, what the
diseases are in the area. Education would be a better way to save the trees.”

In addition to fears of healthy trees being cut down to
appease land developers, what seemed to be the real elephant in the room was being
discussed in many small groups. Residents discussed their concerns regarding the
old cottonwood trees on their lots suffering from disease or beetles and shelling
out unnecessary funds to have those trees removed.

According to several professional arborist companies in
Utah, many of the cottonwood trees in the urban forest area are diseased and
dying — an issue no ordinance can stop.

While some species ofcottonwoods can live upwards of 150 years, others have a life expectancy of
40–50 years and all varieties are prone to disease. Despite their sturdy
appearance, cottonwoods are considered by arborists to be “weak” trees.

As one enraged open houses attendee shouted, her family had been
in Holladay for 100 years, meaning many of those large cottonwoods either have
already, or are about to, hit their quota.

This made some residents question how to keep Holladay,
specifically the urban forest area of Walker and Cottonwood Lane, beautiful for
future generations.

It is a question Talia and Eldin Diglisic, the property
owners currently under fire for clear-cutting their lot, took into great
consideration.

Utah born and bred and an avid rock climber, Talia dreamed
of owning a home on Walker Lane as a youth.

“This was nothing short of a dream — I use to drive down
Walker Lane and think, ‘how would it be to live here?’” said Talia.

“We want to have the atmosphere they got to grow up in,” she
said. “Why can’t we have the same? Our trees were not healthy, though a few may
have had a couple years left, I thought why not get them out now.”

After consulting with two arborists, the Diglisics decided
to cut down trees on their recently purchased property, including the street
canopy, due to a disease in the trees they were informed was too far gone to
treat. Though those trees came out, they had already planned on over $400,000
worth of trees and landscaping to replace what was torn down. They planned to
plant stronger and more disease-resistant trees like sycamores and white oaks,
starting at 15–30 feet tall.

Money Talia was reconsidering spending after an unfortunate
encounter with a few angered neighbors.

Another resident in support of the tree ordinance described
her love of the trees and the habitat they provide, as well as keeping Holladay
cooler. Following her initial reason for attending, she further stated the
ordinance should “be practical and fair,” stating that “no one minds big homes
as long as there is consideration for the environment.”

As the evening wound down and cooler heads prevailed, the
general consensus seemed to be everyone is Team Trees. The real dividing factor was the approach in
how to both protect the trees and keep Holladay beautiful.

With some sitting firmly in the camp of “don’t mess with
nature” and another side wanting to replace the diseased and dying trees, no
one envies the choice the council has in front of them.